Vouch Reputation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the output is signed, intended for import by another gateway, and excludes receipt history. It does not explain signing/auth requirements beyond the implicit private-key parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the parameter and usage gaps rather than pure economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter, 5-required signing tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid: parameter meanings, what the summary contains, and what the caller receives. The annotation-covered safety profile and the receipt-history exclusion are the only substantive context provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (just ttl_seconds), so the description should compensate for the five undocumented parameters and does not. It never explains tier, diversity_score, gateway_id, agent_id, or why gateway_private_key is required, leaving an agent to guess at the semantics of the inputs that drive the signature.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a signed reputation summary.' It also scopes the output ('receipt history is not included') and identifies the consumer ('another gateway can import'). It does not name a sibling like update_reputation or verify_endorsement, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'another gateway can import' hints at the cross-gateway context, but it never states prerequisites (e.g., holding gateway_private_key) or how this differs from update_reputation/apply_reputation_downgrade in the same family.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.